331–340 of 409 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> tweets > reporting done right I'm not sure. Surely it would only benefit her if she weren't limited by 140 characters, right?
No. You're allowed more than 140 characters because you can tweet more than once. The real time updates were invaluable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Bono law may have slipped through Congress with nary a dissent in its day but this will not happen again, whatever the lobbying power of Disney and others. Copyright maximalists realizing this have moved to circumvent democracy globally by enshrining their most draconian laws into "free trade" treaties. These treaties have the proven ability to overturn the will of national democratic bodies and are almost impo…
> Copyright maximalists realizing this have moved to circumvent democracy globally by enshrining their most draconian laws into "free trade" treaties. It's globalists and internationalists that circumvented democracy. The copyright maximalists are just trying to take advantage of the opening.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Likewise, the quality of work produced with the economic incentive of copyright tends to be better, often much better, than what is produced based on other funding models or a voluntary basis... (Some people may disagree, but I consider this point so obvious by now that it's rarely worth engaging on.) Sorry you find this tiresome. The history of popular and culturally relevant music can be seen as basically a histo…
Financial incentives don't encourage great art, they only incentivize commercial art. There are overlaps, but we can't pretend those are both the same thing. I don't entirely agree. Appreciation of art is subjective by nature, but the way we usually quantify value in our society is financial. A work that is popular will be more financially successful. A work that does not have such broad appeal but which is worth a g…
It's good to see different world views expressed clearly, but yours is incredibly foreign to me. For me, the number of dollars that someone else with much more money than I have is willing to pay for an object has almost nothing to with its greatness as art. I instinctively react against the idea as if you were saying "How can love between two people be considered great unless one party is paying the other a large sum to stay in the relationship?"
When 'brownbat' says commercial art, I presume he means art that is created because there is known demand from those with the money to pay for it. And when you say "unless you want to make some argument that art that is neither widely appreciated nor strongly appreciated by a few can still be great", this seems like it is totally ignoring the appreciation those without the ability to pay.
Why should we allow greatness of art be defined only by those who have accumulated a surplus of money? Sure, greatness is subjective, but when it comes to art, does it possibly make sense to restrict greatness to the subset of art appreciated by the rich? I would agree that art cannot be great if it is not "strongly appreciated" by at least someone, but can't it be subjectively great for that someone even if they can't afford to pay much for it?
The difference in our world view might be that I see "appreciative but unable to pay" as the default state of the majority of the world, and thus wouldn't think of restricting great art to that which is also financially lucrative, nor quantifying it by summing the product of the audience member's degree of appreciation times ability to pay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Bono law may have slipped through Congress with nary a dissent in its day but this will not happen again, whatever the lobbying power of Disney and others. Copyright maximalists realizing this have moved to circumvent democracy globally by enshrining their most draconian laws into "free trade" treaties. These treaties have the proven ability to overturn the will of national democratic bodies and are almost impo…
> Copyright maximalists realizing this have moved to circumvent democracy globally by enshrining their most draconian laws into "free trade" treaties. It's globalists and internationalists that circumvented democracy. The copyright maximalists are just trying to take advantage of the opening.
You're usually full of rock solid arguments and facts about how the sky isn't really falling. That was a real bummer to read. :(
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's one way of looking at it. But using a medium where people expect short, frequent updates rather than a 10,000 word article has its advantages.
There's a wide spectrum between a 10k word article and not being limited.
So it was okay to choose Twitter, I think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Copyright maximalists realizing this have moved to circumvent democracy globally by enshrining their most draconian laws into "free trade" treaties. It's globalists and internationalists that circumvented democracy. The copyright maximalists are just trying to take advantage of the opening.
Oh, do treaties no longer need to be ratified?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When a casual passer-by records, copies, and disseminates, no physical aggression is committed. The enforcement of copyright law depends on a third-party initiating a threat of force against property, freedom, and life to dissuade such actions. Copying is non-violent, whereas preventing it requires violence. And where does copying end, and thought begin? If I examine source code, or lyrics, or a short story, reflect…
Is that your libertarian rationalisation against copyright? Because with that kind of logic we couldn't have contracts either (breaching a contract can be non-violent). > And where does copying end, and thought begin? In the same way we decide when a person becomes legally major. We draw whichever arbitrary line seems to make the most sense.
That a false equivalence, contracts are between two parties who both have no grant of violence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not a sufficient answer. The claim assumes that copyright and patents are proven to be beneficial, measurably better than the prior situation. Are they? If so, how? Not to mention, is there any proof there's no better solution?
I think you're moving the goalposts quite a bit here! The original assertion does not assume that the current implementation and interpretation of copyright law is, as you say, "proven to be beneficial, measurably better than the prior situation." The complaint was that "that's not how facts work" but the statement in question was in fact verifiable. If you want to provide proof of a better solution, go for it. Proof…
Problem? Are you sure this is really a problem? We assume by default that it is, but think of this for a second: on the one hand, monetary benefits for a few. On the other, a restriction on the liberty to copy and publish for everyone.
This wasn't always the case: historically, only a few people had the ability to share or publish anything. Copyright wasn't so unbalanced then. Now however we have the internet.
Given this asymmetry, the well being of creative people itself is secondary to the well being of everyone else. The real reason why creative people should be paid is because we want everyone else to be able to enjoy their creations.
It's easy to get caught up in individualistic considerations, such as "I did, it so I deserve a reward", or the opposition between "the" artist and "the" consumer. This can reduce to ridiculous arithmetic errors, such as, the picture of "the" starving artist that lost significant income because "the" consumer didn't pay $5 for a song.
We need to grow a sense of scale.